Let's impeach the president.

firstdown · 05-29-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I was actually looking at that same link myself.

I guess what I'm really asking is, since the "impeachment" process didn't get approved in both chambers, is it historically correct to say Clinton was impeached?

Furthermore will historians consider Bill Clinton an impeached President or is it a matter of interpreting the Constitution?

Everything that I have ever seen both left and right do say that he was impeached and with them listing Andrew Johnson with him would support the fact. Andrew Johnson had the same deal with the senate not voting to impeach him but who knows.

firstdown · 05-29-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Looking back what a freaking debacle that Clinton thing was. I can't imagine the amount of money that was wasted on that which hunt, errrrrrrrrr I mean investigation.

I agree a lot of money was spent on the investigation but how many people ended up in jail? This is the same goverment that some want to run our health care.

FRPLG · 05-29-2007, 01:18 PM

Impeached means he was charged by the House. Impeachment has nothing to do with whether the person charged is found guilty. So yes Clinton WAS impeachedecause he was charged by the House.

Schneed10 · 05-29-2007, 01:43 PM

Thread hell.

ArtMonkDrillz · 05-29-2007, 01:47 PM

I think it all depends on what the definition of 'is' is...

hooskins · 05-29-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Can't wait to see how quickly this thread spirals down into hell

Haha that is exactly what I was thinking. I agree with the thread though. He has a strong track list of lying to the American public, etc which is much worst than anything Clinton did. He is costing us Americans lives. I dont really wanna debate this, not because I cant or that I am not interested, but simply because whoever I argue with is just going to get upset and start attacking me. So please dont reply to this post expecting a response from me.

firstdown · 05-29-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hooskins

Haha that is exactly what I was thinking. I agree with the thread though. He has a strong track list of lying to the American public, etc which is much worst than anything Clinton did. He is costing us Americans lives. I dont really wanna debate this, not because I cant or that I am not interested, but simply because whoever I argue with is just going to get upset and start attacking me. So please dont reply to this post expecting a response from me.

So I guess you just want to make a blanket statement "track list of lying to the American public" and not tell use what all these lies are then, OK.

hooskins · 05-29-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

So I guess you just want to make a blanket statement "track list of lying to the American public" and not tell use what all these lies are then, OK.

No actually I really can, but it isn't worth my time and effort.

If you want a good one, we can start with Iraq. There was clear evidence that Bin Laden had no connection to Iraq at all. And from day one(9/11) Bush had asked several of his advisors if Hussen was somehow linked to 9/11, clearly showing a predisposition towards the Iraq issue. There were numerous times he was presented with information, that indicated Iraq had no connection with 9/11 or nuclear weapons, but those seemed to be ignored.

Dont get me wrong, I think Bush did a great job in the wake of 9/11 and Afghanistan. He was put in a terrible situation, and dealt with it well. But beyond that is where the spiral downwards begins.

I can get links for Iraqi thing, that will confirm my point if you want.

hooskins · 05-29-2007, 02:43 PM

Those lies about Iraq have cost us lives. Did Clinton cost us lives by getting head? I don't think so.

firstdown · 05-29-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hooskins

No actually I really can, but it isn't worth my time and effort.

If you want a good one, we can start with Iraq. There was clear evidence that Bin Laden had no connection to Iraq at all. And from day one(9/11) Bush had asked several of his advisors if Hussen was somehow linked to 9/11, clearly showing a predisposition towards the Iraq issue. There were numerous times he was presented with information, that indicated Iraq had no connection with 9/11 or nuclear weapons, but those seemed to be ignored.

Dont get me wrong, I think Bush did a great job in the wake of 9/11 and Afghanistan. He was put in a terrible situation, and dealt with it well. But beyond that is where the spiral downwards begins.

I can get links for Iraqi thing, that will confirm my point if you want.

Bush never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and even the 9/11 report said that there were links between Iraq and Bin Laden. There were some that said Iraq had no nuclear weapons but UN, Other major countries, most all in congress and senate, Bill Clinton, and many, many more said he did have them. Most of the debate at the time was not rather he had WMD's but was it worth going to war for. Many a politicians want you to think that they were tricked into the war but its just them trying to gt out of what they did.

ArtMonkDrillz · 05-29-2007, 03:21 PM

So why exactly did we go to war with Iraq?

12thMan · 05-29-2007, 03:22 PM

You guys were right. Being impeached and being convicted are two separate things. Thank you guys for Government 101.

JoeRedskin · 05-29-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Exactly, I think he was simply pointing out the hypocrisy within the administration.

That being said, there is talk the Chair of House Judiciary Committee is going to start stirring a debate, more or less, to impeach Bush.

I highly doubt that it will get off the ground, however.

This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have completely different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.

JoeRedskin · 05-29-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just remember, Wikipedia isn't always the most accurate.

But in this case, that is an accurate statement.

12thMan · 05-29-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have completely different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.

The whole AG thing was/is ugly. Heads are still rolling over that, and many are still calling for Gonzales to step down over this.

In the end, I just hope that we can somehow be restored back to the international community when it comes to matters of foreign policy.

05-29-2007, 01:18 PM	#33
FRPLG Franchise Player Join Date: May 2004 Age: 34 Posts: 9,292	Re: Let's impeach the president. Impeached means he was charged by the House. Impeachment has nothing to do with whether the person charged is found guilty. So yes Clinton WAS impeachedecause he was charged by the House.

05-29-2007, 01:43 PM	#34
Schneed10 RG Glee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 33 Posts: 7,917	Re: Let's impeach the president. Thread hell. __________________ Skins' Salary Cap Status \| CrazyCanuck's Cap Figures by Player \| Salary Cap 101

05-29-2007, 01:47 PM	#35
ArtMonkDrillz Franchise Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, MD Age: 30 Posts: 7,767	Re: Let's impeach the president. I think it all depends on what the definition of 'is' is... __________________ Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

05-29-2007, 02:43 PM	#39
hooskins Most Interesting Man in the World Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Chantilly, VA Age: 26 Posts: 8,568	Re: Let's impeach the president. Those lies about Iraq have cost us lives. Did Clinton cost us lives by getting head? I don't think so. __________________ Vacancy

05-29-2007, 03:21 PM	#41
ArtMonkDrillz Franchise Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, MD Age: 30 Posts: 7,767	Re: Let's impeach the president. So why exactly did we go to war with Iraq? __________________ Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

05-29-2007, 03:22 PM	#42
12thMan MVP Join Date: May 2005 Location: washington, D.C. Posts: 11,366	Re: Let's impeach the president. You guys were right. Being impeached and being convicted are two separate things. Thank you guys for Government 101.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Let's impeach the president.

Parking Lot